Moulton arbitration request Options

[michael]

There's currently a request at WP:RFAR to review Moulton's indefinite block. I'm a bit confuzzled. No arb has yet voted on whether to accept it or not, and I know they're active - the Episodes and characters RFAR just went from evidence fo voting. Will he win a reprieve like Ferrylodge? Or will he be sunk like Iantresman?

[The Joy]

I think ArbCom has entered its lame duck period and is waiting until after the New Year with the new arbitrators before commencing on cases.

[Moulton]

KillerChihuahua hasn't responded to the RfC yet. She hasn't been seen on WP since Dec 1. Although she's been notified on her talk page, I haven't filled in the section confirming that all parties are aware of the RfC.

If the Arb Clerk (AGK) doesn't fill in the confirmation section overnight, I'll fill it in tomorrow morning, noting that she's unresponsive. I dunno what the policy is when one of the summoned parties is Missing In Inaction.

[Amarkov]

Well, the arbitrators are starting to reject it, pretty much saying "no, it doesn't matter if the RfC was unfair".

I don't get all the "Moulton thinks Wikipedia is online journalism" stuff. The verifiability policy is pretty clear; demanding that things be verifiable is the way in which Wikipedia should try to get at the truth. From where did the strange idea here come, that trying to publish true information is bad?

[Poetlister]

It's a subtle dig at Wikinews, which does purport to be online journalism.

[Jonny Cache]

From where did the strange idea here come, that trying to publish true information is bad?

It Came From Schenectady St. Petersburg !!!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 6th December 2007, 2:44pm

[Moulton]

Well, the arbitrators are starting to reject it, pretty much saying "no, it doesn't matter if the RfC was unfair".

Note how this ties into the Durova case, because, while my RfAr focuses attention on the rigors of diligent and conscientious due process for all, the respondents are simply saying, "It doesn't matter that we routinely short-circuit due process, we desperately wanted this guy banned and that's the desired and essential bottom line of this RfAr."

I don't get all the "Moulton thinks Wikipedia is online journalism" stuff. The verifiability policy is pretty clear; demanding that things be verifiable is the way in which Wikipedia should try to get at the truth. From where did the strange idea here come, that trying to publish true information is bad?

To my mind, that's a key question for ArbCom to address. I clearly stated my primary objective in the RfC as "achieving a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person." The adversarial editors had to dance around their reasons for rejecting that sincere and good faith objective of mine.

Essentially they are saying that I failed to discover an effective way to achieve that goal within the rules and constraints of the Wikipedia system, as they administer them.

Which is true.

One possibility is that it's simply infeasible to achieve that goal within the operable constraints of the system.

Even those who spot errors in their own profiles can be reluctant to address them. In April this year, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and academic Douglas Hofstadter told the New York Times of his Wikipedia entry, "[it] is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me." When asked why he didn't fix it, he replied, "The next day someone will fix it back."

If Hofstadter's prescient analysis is right, it would confirm that my expressly stated objective is infeasible.

With respect to my request to ArbCom for a review of the formulaic script that short-circuits the rigors of due process, Kirill opines:

Nothing here that indicates potential for improved behavior.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 6th December 2007, 3:16pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Krill's edit declining Arbitration is telling. The only relief to a user lacking sufficient influence is forgiveness after contrition. You are not entitled to a hearing on the merits.

[Moulton]

Krill's edit declining Arbitration is telling. The only relief to a user lacking sufficient influence is forgiveness after contrition. You are not entitled to a hearing on the merits.

So far, with the ephemeral exception of Mercury, none of the named respondents or self-appointed responders have detected that my request to ArbCom is for a review of the propriety of the formulaic and Kafkaesque script that the responders are employing, even as they respond according to said formulaic script, oblivious of the questions actually placed before ArbCom for examination in this case.

[AB]

From the statement by MastCell (diff, minor amendments):

he has a fundamental disagreement with the policy of
verifiability, not truth.

Well, as Ms. SV pointed out (page creation):

To "verify" means to confirm that something is true.

Thus:

The terms "verifiability" and "no original research" confused
people, newbies and experienced editors alike.

It's really not all that fundamental as MastCell thinks. See
Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth, for example.

In an edit summary:

false and libelous statements do not belong in biographies,
even with attribution

Coppertwig on truth and attribution in biographies of living
persons (diff):

I agree with Simon Dodd and Dcmacnut, if I understand
correctly. First of all, if a statement about a person is false,
then it is not very interesting. Wikipedia's purpose is to
present interesting or potentially useful facts. So if
Wikipedians have established to their satisfaction that a
statement is false or probably false, then it probably doesn't
belong in the article, (unless maybe there's significant
controversy about it), especially not in a biography of a living
person -- whether it's published material or some other thing
which has convinced the Wikipedians that it's false. If different
Wikipedians disagree about whether it's false, that's a
different situation -- however, we need to be careful in
biographies of living people. If there is good reason to believe
that a statement may be false, maybe it needs to be taken out
of a biography of a living person pending further investigation.
In any case, whether it is true or not is certainly not irrelevant.

There might be no published refutation of the statement, but
the living person might privately hold conclusive proof that it's
false, which could be brought out during a libel suit against
Wikipedia. We don't want Wikipedia going bankrupt having to
pay legal fees. Better to delete the information unless we're
on solid ground.

Coppertwig's question (original wording, wording change):

Proponents [of Wikipedia:Attribution] have not given a yes or
not to this question: Are you really suggesting that an editor
who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping
write the encyclopedia?

Opinion from Ken Arromdee (diff):

If you try to deny that verifiability and truth are ever at odds
with each other, you're not accurately describing Wikipedia. In
some cases, "verifiability, not truth" really *means* "not truth".

This post has been edited by AB: Thu 6th December 2007, 6:27pm

[Moulton]

he has a fundamental disagreement with the policy of verifiability, not truth.

It's really not all that fundamental as MastCell thinks. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth, for example.

Whew! Looks like the issue is a veritable can of worms.

[Moulton]

The questions I have placed on ArbCom's table have drawn this interesting response and ensuing colloquy from an uninvolved (and evidently retired) observer who signs his name as R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine).

A year ago, R.D.H. ran for ArbCom on this platform.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 6th December 2007, 5:09pm

[Moulton]

Josh Gordon evidently believes there are already way too many venues where questions of Wikipedia's erratic practices are being discussed that ArbCom doesn't need to be one of them.

That's unfortunate, because ArbCom is one of the few authoritative venues where the questions I raised might actually be reviewed, clarified, or even settled.

[Jonny Cache]

Josh Gordon evidently believes there are already way too many venues where questions of Wikipedia's erratic practices are being discussed that ArbCom doesn't need to be one of them.

That's unfortunate, because ArbCom is one of the few authoritative venues where the questions I raised might actually be reviewed, clarified, or even settled.

Okay, Okay, you get the part of Gidget!
Now get your tail off the casting couch!

Jonny

[Moulton]

Sorry. Didn't mean to upstage you.

There's room in the docket for all of us.

[AB]

Have you considered asking for the right to vanish in lieu of
being blocked?

Actually, I doubt they'd go for that, but there are a lot of
managers who will let one quit instead of getting fired,
which is good for finding one's next job.

[Jonny Cache]

Sorry. Didn't mean to upstage you.

There's room in the docket for all of us.

It's just that your farce is far too subtle —

It's confusing the children …

Jonny

[Moulton]

Have you considered asking for the right to vanish in lieu of being blocked?

Vanish? Why would I want to vanish?

My ArbCom case isn't about being blocked. It's about reviewing whether editors who share my stated objectives have any role to play in defining the future of Wikipedia.

Sorry. Didn't mean to upstage you.

There's room in the docket for all of us.

It's just that your farce is far too subtle —

It's confusing the children …

At least you appreciate that creative problem solving can be subtle without being malicious.

Besides, confusion is the first step towards enlightenment.

[AB]

Have you considered asking for the right to vanish in lieu of being blocked?

Vanish? Why would I want to vanish?

So that they do not defame you on top of Google.

My ArbCom case isn't about being blocked. It's about reviewing whether editors who share my stated objectives have any role to play in defining the future of Wikipedia.

They seem to think otherwise... and I doubt the
latter is within ArbCom's jurisdiction.

[Moulton]

Do you remember that famous Bob & Ray Komodo Dragon Routine where one is interviewing the other, but the interviewer isn't paying attention to the answers, and the interviewee provides information beyond the stale questions?

What's fascinating about my Request for Arbitration is that the respondents seem not to have noticed what questions I put before them.

They are responding to the question they presumed I would have asked, without bothering to read the actual questions on the table.

Link: http://www.videoevolved.com/?tag=bob+and+r...tag&per_page=10

Click on the green panel for the Komodo Dragon routine.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 6th December 2007, 11:07pm